Soccer Analyst for Fox Soccer Report and Fox Soccer News 24/7 from 2001 to 2013 and I can now be seen on Soccer Central in Canada. I have been a soccer writer and broadcaster for over 20 years and I have followed the world's game for as long as I care to remember. I also write a regular column at soccerly.com.

David Moyes’ time as manager of Manchester United was brought to an end last Tuesday only ten months after he was appointed to succeed Sir Alex Ferguson.

Despite approving a six-year contract last May the Manchester United board of directors called time before Moyes had even completed a full season.

During Moyes’ tenure the sun only briefly peeked through the dark clouds of dull soccer and bad results that hung ominously over Old Trafford. Only for the briefest of moments did they look like dispersing.

Manchester United’s image suffered through the consequence of Moyes’ appointment and performances but the club also handled the dismissal very poorly.

The groundwork was laid with a series of leaks to selected members of the media after a 2-0 loss to Everton last Sunday. Fans around the world woke up on Monday to headlines that trumpeted the imminent sacking of Moyes.

But rather than a quick execution it took another 24 hours for the deed to be done. During the intervening period there was a cavalcade of stories obviously sourced through club insiders and players. The purpose was to substantiate the coming dismissal.

It was a major gaff and a strategy unbecoming Manchester United. The fact is that there was little or no need to build a case. The majority of United fans were already convinced that Moyes’ role as the manager of Manchester United was untenable and the only decision left was when he would be released rather than if.

The lack of a coherent and defensible communications strategy was reinforced during the days that followed. The club started to backtrack with Moyes’ role in potential transfers being acknowledged and there was a softening of the stories that had so obviously been planted just 48 hours before.

By Thursday, the story had moved on to the star players Manchester United were looking to sign this summer and how the squad needed to be rebuilt.

The advisability of spending a reputed $150M to $200M on new players without a new manager in place is open to question. Nonetheless, it seems widely accepted that Manchester United has simply to flex some financial muscle and normal service will be resumed.

But it is not as simple as that, in fact far from it.

Although some of the media chatter has acknowledged the issue of Financial Fair Play and the need for Manchester United to remain “onside,” the barometer used is more often than not UEFA’s regulations.

The UEFA model offers some spending exemptions e.g. youth development, stadium development but the maximum permitted losses are restricted to a cumulative $60M in blocks of three years that roll forward.

The maximum permitted losses are scheduled to reduce in years to come but the underlying principle is the same – a club can spend as much as it likes as long as it can generate a commensurate level of “legitimate” income.

Even after debt interest payments (a staggering $230M in just the last three years) inflicted on the club by the owners, Manchester United is still regarded as a profitable business that can safely navigate through a short-term revenue reduction.

Champions League revenue for this current year is worth around $55M to Manchester United and the loss will cut into United’s profit. Over the last three years (2013 to 2011) Manchester United’s cumulative net income before extraordinary items has been $276.5M – by year $222.3M, $34.9M and $19.3M.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.